Bishop Hill Today's energy prognostications
Aug 15, 2013 Energy: gas Energy: wind The shale gas story is still getting a fair amount of media play. In the Times (reproduced at GWPF), Matt Ridley looks at the most common scare stories put round by the green movement in their ceaseless struggle to find some mud that they can get to stick.
In the meantime, Zoe Williams in the Guardian looks at energy policy as a whole. This is interesting stuff, because it gets near to sensible at times, which is not something one finds oneself saying about that particular publication very often.
...all energy production causes environmental damage. Even the people who love the look of windfarms have to admit to the scenic damage caused by the roads and surrounding infrastructure they need. Coal mines, nuclear facilities … which of these things could you say looked pretty? An opposition whose fundamental principle is, "energy from anywhere, unless it's near me" is just individualism dressed up as environmentalism.
But it's not all good. Having admitted that renewables are not ready for prime time...
the lowest carbon fuels are renewables; they're not yet ready to supply all the country's energy;
...she then concludes that we should invest in them. In her view, we should spend money on gas to ensure that the lights stay on, and continue to throw money at wind power, which she admits doesn't deliver the goods.
Reader Comments (98)
Entropic Man,
I thought you had previously said in this forum that you were in favour of nuclear power. If you seriously meant that, how did you arrive at the conclusion you have just stated above?
" If you are correct, our civilization will collapse when the last
available fossil fuels are used up."
What will the CO2 induced temperature rise have been by then roughly? Are we not supposed to be like Venus by then.
It looks like more useful idiots are on the way to Balcombe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23721713
IMHO collapse of civilisation is more likely to be caused by global cooling, meteor strike or a virus than running out of an energy source.
I should have thought a Carrington event the most likely candidate.
In the complete absence of any effective recovery policies by the Obama administration and half billion dollar renewable disasters like Solyndra, it is actually the unexpected miracle of the shale gas revolution which will propel the American economy out of recession. The same applies to any country fortunate enough to have substantial shale deposits and the political will to develop them
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/know-your-enemy-the-green-politician/
Pointman
Yes. And we're down to our last 1000 years of fossil fuel now.
EntropicMan wrote :
Human civilizations survived on "renewables" until ~1750 and the advent of steam. Before that all transport was by animals and all food was "organic". The world supported a population of ~ 500 million and just 6 million in the UK.
Modern civilization is dependent on fossil fuels not just for energy, but also for food (fertilizers). We could probably adapt to a gradual reduction in availability of fossil fuels over the next 100 years if we develop an alternative energy source. The only conceivable energy source is nuclear, initially fission and later fusion.
So called "renewables" are nothing of the sort. Biofuels have a zero net return on energy since they rely 100% on fossil fuels to produce them. Wind turbines need aluminium and PV cells need silicon and rare earths both dependent on fossil (or nuclear) energy. However the killer for all forms of renewables is their very low energy density - i.e. how much land is needed to generate say 2 Gwatt.
PV Solar = 130 square miles of solar farm
Wind = 700 square miles of wind farm
Biofuel = 2500 square miles of Corn/Ethanol
Nuclear = 0.1 square miles for a single nuclear power station.
To theoretically meet current UK demand for electricity (excluding transport, home heating etc.) by wind would mean covering the whole of Wales, Devon and Cornwall with Wind turbines. Furthermore there is not a hope in hell of any "breakthrough" to reduce significantly these numbers because renewables will always remain inherently low density.
The only two primary energy sources on Earth are anyway both nuclear. The sun is a fusion reactor and geothermal energy comes from nuclear fission. Renewables are in fact a by-product of nuclear energy.
Either we go nuclear or eventually return to a pre-industrial society with 10% of the population burning wood to keep warm.
“If true then wind has already made a difference because we are not building any more hydro AFAIK. If not then what is the truth? I'm skeptical but there are very few unspun facts out there. I'd like some unbiased information.” JamesG
When you add wind power to a generously supplied grid then there’s no problem. Too much energy and you pay the windmills to disconnect. Too little and you get your hydro to take up the slack while you crank up the gas stations idling in the background. However, we soon won’t have a grid with spare capacity. We’ll have a tight grid with back up diesel generators. Add more wind and you get even more instability. Germany has been dumping spare electricity into the Euro grid and then sucking up loads of nuclear electricity from France when they’re short. Some of its neighbours are getting seriously cross because it’s destabilising their grids (some of which won’t be as robust physically as Germany- old kit etc).
So sure, when things are going well then wind does add electricity to the grid.
Another issue that follows the concept of wind is the theory that if more money is thrown at wind then the better it’ll become. They look at the technological advances of computers and think there’s plenty of scope for improvement in wind. Ummm probably not. Lots of technologies have improved very little in the last 100 years. The biggest problem for wind is probably aging. The windmills are exposed to extremely harsh conditions especially those at sea. There’s a race between how much electricity the thing can supply before it falls prey to the elements. I’ve never seen a measure of how much energy it takes to get a windmill up and running but I bet it’s substantial and what about the disposal costs? I believe Denmark has a serious waste problem with failed carbon fibre blades. When you subtract the lifespan energy costs from the energy produced, what is the net benefit?
If they can find a way to store unwanted electricity, if there’s a break though in technology, if a better alternative doesn’t come along, if AGW continues to be seen as a serious issue, then it might be worth pursuing wind. But that’s a lot of ifs.
To those saying 100% renewables isn't on the table, why then did the EU fund a report into achieving it? WWF have been pushing it. The World Future Council are lobbying for it.Price Waterhouse Cooper have been consulted on it Even a BBC reporter with a familiar name wrote a brief article about it several years ago.
We must be eternally grateful to Michael Fallon who, a few weeks' ago, warned us of the STOR programme of decentralised standby/backup of wind energy by diesel generators.
This was started apparently in 2007 by DECC, no doubt to save their backside. In short, the windmills which cannot save more than about 2-3% of the fossil fuel/ wind kWhr are to be supported by 15 GW fossil fuel generators with ~27% thermodynamic efficiency.
Therefore wind significantly increases fossil fuel use compared with 60% thermodynamically efficient CCGTs or 38% thermodynamically efficient coal fired power stations [45% for oxygen fuelled supercrritical stations the Germans are installing and which were planned for Kingsnorth], WITH NO WINDMILLS.
Thus the wind programme is a confidence trick; a political act to show the totalitarian control of the EU. The windmills are negatively green. There is a recovery route including shale gas but because it will slash grid prices and the earnings for the renewables and carbon trading Mafia and their eco-fascist front groups like Greenpeace, FoE, WWF etc., it is being bitterly resisted.
What is needed is to confront the deluded activists like ZDB full on with the engineering facts and to tell those who have commandeered power policy to stop their technologically-ignorant meddling and let professional engineers, committed to real green policies, to take control from the crooks and the insane.
Anybody with any scientific background knows that 100% renewables is a nonsense unless we go back to a pre-industrial peasant society relying on wood and horse power. But that seems to be the aim of our great leaders with their great leap forward. It all sounds depressingly familiar to anyone who's been around a few years.
The aim of the windmills is to create wealth for the landowners and the Mafia who own the wind farms, also carbon traders and bought politicians; Corporatist Fascism from a Fabian background.
PS: the debate about the origin of the greenhouse effect is passing into the 'well, what if it doesn't exist' stage. There is a ghe but it is unconnected with lapse rate effects, the basis of the IPCC fraud. Currently it's about ~11 K. At the last glacial minimum it was ~ 2 K. The difference is from biofeedback minimising the rate or radiation entropy production as the Earth converts low entropy SW to high entropy LW.
This is where real professionals are investigating; Hansenkoism and the religion of the deluded and the daft is being replaced by real science. CO2 climate sensitivity is as near zero as dammit because the Earth does all it can to maximise CO2 to minimise high entropy 15 micron emission to Space.
OK here is what we need to do.
1) Run a cable through Greenwich right round the Earth through the North and South Poles
2) The rotation of the Earth through its magnetic field will induce a current in the coil
3) Feed the voltage into the national Grid
Upside: quasi infinite reliable free energy
Downside: Days will get longer !
Its still amazes me that some did not get that the renewable industry is by its nature like any other industry , full of people out to make money first and foremost. But somehow the application of green wash means that does not matter. And they should endless public money throw at them through subsides.
I don’t blame the industry itself , its to be expected they get has much free cash as they can , it’s the idiotic people they push them the money I blame.
"and what about the disposal costs?"
A good wheeze for eliminating these costs would be for the power generator/owner, having built the wind farm with money legislated from it's consumers, to sell said wind farm together with clean up liabilities to a city consortium and guarantee to buy the output at a price fixed to mutually enrich both parties.
When useful life of windfarm, built on leased land is reached, city vehicle goes into liquidation having first distributed the clean up money leaving nothing in the kitty.
Think this unlikely? Already the first stage has been put in place by SSE and such a company exists.
As far as poor Zoe is concerned I am convinced that her regular appearances are a cruel joke by Sky programmers who obviously indulged too much in material about Victorian fairgrounds and related forms of voyeuristic entertainment whilst reading History at Oxford.
Gareth,
That BBC article on 100% renewables contains the following classic.
"The plan (for 100% renewables) calls for 3.8 million large wind turbines and 90,000 solar plants worldwide. Mr Delucchi and Mr Jacobson say their scheme costs $100 trillion (needing maintenance and renewal every 20 years). They admit it would need strong government and public support !!!"
Total Worldwide GDP (2012) = $85 trillion !
Well I skimmed Zoe's article and I didn't see one number in the whole thing. No discussion whatsoever of Carbon Floor Price or Renewables Obligations or the myriad other policy issues surrounding energy.
Looked like nothing but idealistic mantras to support her views on renewables. If she is serious about her comment "The energy debate has been sacrificed to political expedience. It's time to work out how to wrest it back." then IMO she should get to grips with the real technical and economic issues and offer proper commentary and analysis of those - there's certainly a gap in the market!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Williams
(As a BTW re her closing comment "I cannot think of an issue that shows Westminster in a less flattering light." goes - does anybody have any examples of anything which do show Westminster in a "flattering light"?!)
Re: technical arguments, it is worth mentioning David MacKay's work - a while since I read it but I recall it being based on reality:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
ISBN 0954452933
The online version is identified as Version 3.5.2. November 3, 2008. A quick pdf search gives no hits for "frack" and only one hit for "shale", which is in the context of coal. I wonder if David MacKay will update it?
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/david-mackay
entropic - re: biofuels - no time to debate but look into land use change and give some thought to the CO2 pulse issue associated with large scale wood combustion.
One potential perpetually available energy supply that shows no signs of drying up any time soon is environmentalist whack jobs.
The Fischer-Tropsch pyrolysis process is commonly used to convert coal or gas into hydrocarbon liquids, but it works, to a greater or lesser degree of efficiency, with almost any fuel. Methane is best, coal less so, biomass even less so, but it still works.
So you could actually use these malevolent crypto-fascist hippies as the fuel source for pyrolysis. They're not the ideal fuel, but they would work. As they are themselves a harmful pollutant, we could live with the conversion inefficiency.
There is something elegant about the idea of solving two problems - energy security and green subversion - in one go. It would be the ultimate green diesel.
The green movement is anxious for lots of old, weak and poor people to die sooner rather than later of fuel poverty, so they could hardly complain if we use them up preventing this.
@ not banned yet
MacKay's book is IMHO pretty dishonest. He argues that sustainable energy is required because of climate change, resource shortage and dodgy foreigners, but the first two are debatable, his solutions don't address the third and he lapses into ecofascist straw man arguments when looking at the case against sustainables.
For example, he summarises the argument against wind power as being "No, they're ugly noisy things" (page 108 of my hard copy). The actual arguments against wind, with which he declines to engage, are that they:
- cause illness
- harm wildlife
- do not work most of the time
- require fossil backup on standby for those times
- are ruinously expensive and thus increase fuel poverty (and deaths), and
- thus do not work, even on their own terms.
Likewise, he maintains that the main argument against wave power is that it's too expensive, as though this is not a good argument. Actually, though, even that's not the main argument either; the main argument is that it doesn't work. As he himself admits (on page 74), "...if everyone owned a metre of coastline and could harness their whole 40kW, that would be plenty....However.....there is not enough Atlantic-facing coastline for everyone to have their own metre". That’s the main argument, right there in his own book (there's about 1.6cm each, not a metre, apparently. Bummer).
Either he does not know that these are the key counter-arguments, which is hard to believe; or he knows perfectly well, misrepresents what his opponents actually say, and doesn't care a fig about the terrible, lethal harm wind is doing right now. Whichever it is, neither reflects a lot of credit upon him.
@J4R: my take on MacKay is that he is one of the good guys in that a year last May he reportedly warned Davey that without massive pump storage the windmills couldn't save any fossil fuel use or CO2 emissions. This presumably was when the debate in DECC was whether to go for the fraudulent use of STOR via diesel to pretend the windmills could work, or to be honest.
It looks like Davey decided, as most politician would, to go for the finesse. Fallon, possibly operating in his role of wise co-manager of the Tory green looney in chief, blew the gaff. I bet MacKay approved because he is a competent physicist even though, not having the process engineering experience that immediately proves the IPCC case is false, he fell for the scam, as do most academics.
The next stage is to face down the stop the dash for gas crowd, a bunch of eco-fascist saboteurs financed ultimately by carbon traders and those heavily invested in renewables, our new Brown Shirts.
Also McKays conclusion that gas should be used only for electricity is daft. The National grid even say the exact opposite in their 2009 biogas report used by Greenpeace. By McKays odd logic we should swap 90% on conversion to electricity then claim it back somehow via expensive heat exchangers. But only the ground source ones could really work like that and they cost a fortune. So some of his numbers only stack up if he ignores installation costs, some numbers come from unreliable sales brochures (air source heat pumps) and other numbers just seem to confuse him (almost everything to do with wind or nuclear power). For a while in the reports he inspired there even seemed to be an inherent assumption that we would fill the energy gap by efficiency savings. Again ignoring installation costs. I'd far prefer someone from the national grid doing that job rather than an academic.
CCGTs are 60% efficient but when used with windmills suffer far more than old coal or nuclear. This is because to use them as standby you must throttle them back and that degrades the efficiency of the steam cycle. Let's assume that the real efficiency before power losses is 50% and of this, 12.5% is lost by the low steam turbine slew rate and a further 12.5% to the low voltage grid. This gives 38%.
To get the energy back by a heat pump needs a COP of 100/38 = 2.6. That is possible with an air source heat pump COP = 3 but net efficiency gain is ~15%. It's far better to use a domestic fuel cell to generate ~1 kW. Do the sums and you save 35% of the gas for electricity + heat. If used to power a heat pump as well, you save 65% of the gas.
10 million of these as decentralised standby with 55% thermodynamic efficiency gives a saving of fossil fuel use by the windmill part of the grid and you get a 3 year payback of the extra cost by the home-owner.
The biggest problem is that putting 10GW in the ownership of the people instead of the Mafia would slash grid prices and the wind farmers would go bust in a few weeks.........:o)
Clive Best Aug 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM said
quote
1) Run a cable through Greenwich right round the Earth through the North and South Poles
2) The rotation of the Earth through its magnetic field will induce a current in the coil
3) Feed the voltage into the national Grid
Upside: quasi infinite reliable free energy
Downside: Days will get longer !
unquote
In fact, fossil coral growth lamellae and so on demonstrate that days have been getting longer throughout geological time. A tabulation is here
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/6Page58.pdf
Multiple recycling bins lining village streets, ugly solar panels disfiguring the rooftops, massive, noisy bird killing wind turbines blighting the landscape and now, thousands of aggressive thugs descending on previously peaceful villages. Why are the Greens determined to destroy our environment?
Thank you, Philip Bratby. It is good to see how fact-free these people are: “It was exactly these kinds of actions hundreds of years ago that gave women the vote with the Suffragettes. It's absolutely no different,” – Jamie Kelsey Fry, from No Dash For Gas, (my emphasis) who also says said that the protesters would be doing “everything they can to make the country think twice” about fracking.
RR
Yes, I picked up that anachronism as well.
Possibly to my shame I just shrugged and passed on. Nothing about these idiots surprises me any more and I suppose the more often they make fools of themselves the sooner people will realise just what fools they are.
There was a woman from No Dash for Gas on Channel 4 this evening. She was spouting complete lies and nonsense. Where do these useful idiots come from? She had a Polish-type name.
The void in green deliberation, is their bible. The reasons are not clear but the future will mean a technological regression with no design, nor end point.
It is beyond my comprehension, I cannot fathom the irrationality of the [Balcombe] protesters - in the end it's all about saving the planet - is that how they really see it? Or not?
Yet, most of the arrivals would come by automated transport, I'd be willing to bet, not a single one of them would be able to perceive how deeply ironic that mere fact is. To arrive and come upon a demonstration against oil exploration - that, even they [the holier than thou green guardians] are dependent upon the 'wheels' of western technology and vehicular transport reliant upon fossil fuels.
But it's dafter than that.
For crying out loud! Cuadrilla are not fracking, nowhere on the site of the Balcombe rig - is fracking to be used - the drilling operation is a search for oil and not shale gas!
Though, we are talking here about a crew of professional anarchists who will not brook, nor countenance any counter argument no matter how constructively it is made. Yes, these guys minds have been made up and they will not budge, plus everything is well with the world if you conform to their viewpoint. But what is their end? If you destroy everything and go about reversing technological advancement, then in the end: what is left?
As yet, other than fission, there is no valid economic alternative to fossil fuel powered technology. True there are some areas where green power is a boon, for the Norwegians but is not feasible here in the UK.
We need fossil fuels, to dig our way out of the colossal hole our politicians and bankers have excavated for us. Right under our feet, is an economic bonanza which could restore British fortunes and finances - yet a claque of professional backwards thinking nihilistic wreckers are against it, hydraulic fracturing could change all of our lives for the better. But Greenpeace, the WWF, FoE and the other useful idiots - do not want this [coal, then fracked gas, oil] for Britain.
It's OK for Greens to fly, drive and use technology and in doing so consume terawatts in the process, trouble is - they don't want you to have cheap heating and lighting or, to be able to access technology - because it therefore follows that: only the green adherents can save the planet.
A departure with no arrival, that's truly green.
Philip Bratby
Did her name start with a Z by any chance?
Okay. Try it. I know of others who have, to find that what is shown by Al Gore is actually NOT replicable, without a host of dodgy film editing and fact manipulation. But, I suspect, your mind is rather tightly shut against such a prospect.
What's her name or origin got to do with it?
TerryS
Nuclear would give us a 100 year breathing space to find replacements for the fossil fuels.
. Unfortunately we are already 50 years behind on clearing up the mess made by the first generation of reactors. Poor engineering at Chernobyl and Fukishima has cost the contamination and evacuation of hundreds of square miles of land.
Like hydraulic fracturing, there is also a strong psychological resistance to overcome before large scale nuclear becomes politically acceptable.
Nuclear power is a rational medium term solution to our upcoming power shortages, but the voters who must decide are not going to think rationally.
"100% renewables is a nonsense unless we go back to a pre-industrial peasant society"
Philip Bratby
With finite fossil fuel reserves, this may be the inevitable fate of our civilization. Increasing the proportion of renewables in the mix would at least reduce our fossil fuel burn and postpone that that fate for a while.
More hypocrisy from the RSPB. Generally, they don't mind wind turbines mincing birds, including rare and protected species, but they have lodged objections to proposals to drill for shale gas and oil in Lancashire and West Sussex, even though there is no known impact on birds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23730308
RR
I wouldn't bother with any version of Al Gore's experiment if I were you. It bears no relationship to a chaotic multiple input multiple output system which will have more unknown unknowns than known knowns and therefore is about as relevant to anything as our favourite trolls comments have to reality.
SandyS:
I know; I just love baiting trolls. They are just so easy to shoot down, immersed as they are in bile, and not a shred of rational thought to share with anyone. Smug little me thought my (now redacted) response was quite good. I do wonder what make them so, and how they get on with those closer to them.
Having read Matt Ridley’s article, one thought raised its head: has anyone considered the impact that manual fracking has had, and continues to have? Why are there no protest camps around the manual fracking sites that still litter the countryside? Surely, closing these sites would have even greater benefits, as we would no longer be sending workers into such dangerous environs? Or is the preservation of miners’ jobs more important than the considerable environmental impact mining has (spoil heaps, subsidence, etc.)?
Re: Entropic Man
Current usage of Uranium is about 68,000t/yr and there are currently about 7,000,000t of known recoverable resources which gives 102 years of use.
In addition, there is an estimated 10,000,000t of undiscovered conventional resources (believed to exist, but not physically confirmed) which gives another 147 years.
Then there is the Uranium in phosphates - 22,000,000t - which used to be extracted from fertilizers until the falling price made it uneconomical. That gives another 323 years.
Finally, there is the 4,000,000,000t in sea water. Whether this ever becomes economically viable is another matter but we have 572 years to work out how to do it.
None of this takes into account improvements in efficiency and reactor design. It also ignores other fuels such as thorium.
Was I? Where? Funny how I don’t remember that… Now, who is it you say is paranoid?
Terry S
Some of your uranium sources share the problem of the gas in the Bowland shale. It is present, but only a small proportion can be effectively harvested.
Ultimately the same problem remains. We can run nuclear power stations until the fuel runs out and then perforce are driven back into whatever level of technology we can sustain with renewables alone. All that changes is the timescale.
My own solution is to get out of the hole by colonising the Solar System and harvesting asteroids, but that would require too much investment for the short-termists. They would prefer us to end up like the man stranded at the bottom of a hole, having burned the ladder as firewood.
Radical Rodent, Sandy S
Your recent comments remind me of the pre-Enlightenment scholars. Their idea of research was to read Aristotle and Plato, then decide which was right. Any suggestion that they actually got their hands dirty with experiment was regarded as absurd.
Your equivalent is to read spin-sceptic blogs such as WUWT and Bishop Hill, then tell each other how right they are. Actual experiment might contradict your dearly held delusions. :-)
Entropic Man, I like your solution of colonising the solar system, and expect it will help to solve our problems in the longer term. But a necessary condition for this to work (I think) is that we do not bankrupt ourselves in the medium term by overinvesting in expensive renewables. As is well known, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future - and proprtionately more difficult as the future is further away.
No. We started at the bottom of a deep, dark hole. We have climbed part of the way out of it. In large measure this is due to our use of carbon-based fuels. Try thinking about the golden age of ballooning, and people not being forced to burn the furniture to keep warm in winter.
Gathering winter fuel by wood-theft is reportedly on the rise in Germany:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html
Good King Wenceslas must be spinning in his grave.
Entropic Man (Aug 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM):
You have a point. I admit I cannot be bothered rustling up the equipment, enthusiasm and energy performing experiments; I do prefer to watch others doing the work. However, I like to think that I am able to spot a charlatan at work – and the initial video alluded to was certainly dodgy! The debunking video appeared considerably more plausible.
Comfortable as it may be to interact with opinions akin to mine, I do not confine myself to the safety of this, or similar, blog, but am prepared to poke about in less-favourable territory; such is the penalty of striving for balance.
Re: EM
> Some of your uranium sources share the problem of the gas in the Bowland shale. It is present, but only a small proportion can be effectively harvested.
The Uranium from phosphate can be extracted now. The technology is mature and was used up until about the 1990s when the falling cost of Uranium made it uneconomic. Up until then the US got about 20% of their Uranium from Florida's phosphate deposits. Uranium is nearly at the price where it will be economic again.
Uranium from seawater has only been done in the laboratory because it currently costs 10 times as much as mining it. This shouldn't be a barrier though as even if the cost of Uranium was to increase a 100 fold it would add very little to the cost of running a nuclear power station. Additionally, if we could only extract 1% from seawater (and lab experiments indicate much more) that would still give us an extra 588 years on top of the 572 from conventional and phosphates.
If we haven't managed to crack fusion within the 1000 years that Uranium gives us then we probably don't deserve to have the power. If we do manage it then that gives us anything from 3000 to 150 billion years worth of power.
In 1997 the JET fusion experiment at Culham generated 16MW of controlled fusion power almost reaching energy breakeven. ITER being built in France will generate 500MW fusion power - a gain factor 10. Paul Rebut the lead physicist/engineer behind JET originally wanted ITER to be a self burning plasma machine without need for any external heating leading directly to Fusion power stations. He was thwarted by politics.
ITER will however also produce a huge flux of 14MeV neutrons. Rebut is proposing a blanket of thorium or natural uranium . The neutrons would then induce fission boosting power output by a further factor 10. This is a fusion fission hybrid reactor producing ~ 2GW.
Fusion in one form or another already works. If the UK/EU invested 10% of what it spends each year subsidizing wind energy in Fusion research maybe it could happen much quicker.